Just like you, but different
It only really just occurred to me that the whole Catholic faith is as a result of extrapolation of a few words and sentence. Whole churches and thousands of followers extrapolated from a bunch of words. Words that have been changed and re-ordered, texts that contain contradictions and statements that can’t apply two thousand years after they were written. The fact that there are almost as many variations on churches as there are words in the Catholic Bible should ring alarm bells, but it doesn’t.
That might be true of most religions.
That you can write whole treatises on a sentence or placement of a word seem core to the continuation of the ministry of faith.
Religion is intensely and totally a personal thing, your own personal Jesus is yours and yours alone. I don’t think that there would be two people who would share, in total, the whole concept and nuance of their faith. It is very subjective.
I’m atheist, and I have no problem with acceptance of a natural order of things, nor am I beholden to a core belief that I am not self-reliant or self-sufficient in and of myself. I’m content with the fact that when I die I die. I’m not happy about it, death, nor am I prepared for it. In fact some days I’m downright petrified by the prospect of an end.
But not having a continuance doesn’t bother me, why should it? Why should it bother anyone? Who really has had a life whereby a continuance would make a difference to anything? Anything other than a personal relationship or relationships group that is, ie partners or wider family.
Sure there are historical figures that we draw on for inspiration and hold as examples of change-makers. We’re pretty selective in what we remember and why, and what bits we celebrate and hold true. We’re not prepared to peek behind the curtain lest we see a reflection of ourselves.
The vocal religious types, On the whole, tend to be a bit self-centered and frankly a bit ignorant. A few sentences from a religious tract does not make it righteous. A selective, or enhanced, quotation does not prove your point, nor should it guide your moral compass. And you shouldn’t expect it to guide anyone else. Defending your faith aloud tends to draw attention to yourself and in doing so you call into question the depth of your faith, and your critical thinking. And this is where you leave yourself open to criticism and correction by the often slightly more educated atheist.
After all since the believers are labeling someone as a non-believer then the non-believer has to have a number of counter-arguments and reasoning’s, and trust me they’re all used and have been used, researched and investigated for use. All for naught though since if you have faith then you have it. You can’t stop having faith, you can choose to critically think about the faith you have and understand it’s fallacy.
On Twitter I follow a number of atheist tweeters, I’ve also followed and still do religious tweeters. The atheist twitter accounts, that I follow, tend to be more argumentative. The atheists don’t seem to get the live and let live of religion. It’s unlikely that religion or religious dogma would intrude upon their lives. And where it does ridicule and scorn don’t appear to be an effective counter argument.
It really does seem unlikely that there would be a middle ground, and religion and religious teachings account for a large portion of money, influence and sway in society, in many countries, and that’s not going to change any time soon.
Is religion wrong? Some of the teachings and some of the application of teachings is very wrong. These are human failings and interpretations, and there are vested interests in making sure that the status quo and balance is maintained. Change is slow and constant.
I’d be comfortable with your faith if you were as comfortable as I am with mine, but just don’s ask me to defend your position.